Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; State of California

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 49 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12762-12767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6258]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6236-9]


Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested approval, 
under Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), to implement and 
enforce California's ``Hexavalent Chromium Airborne Toxic Control 
Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations'' 
(Chrome ATCM) in place of the ``National Emission Standards for 
Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and 
Chromium Anodizing Tanks'' (Chrome NESHAP). EPA has reviewed this 
request and has found that it satisfies all of the

[[Page 12763]]

requirements necessary to qualify for approval. Thus, EPA is hereby 
granting California the authority to implement and enforce its Chrome 
ATCM in place of the Chrome NESHAP.

DATES: This action is effective on April 14, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of CARB's request for approval are available for 
public inspection at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-3901. (docket #A-96-25)
California Air Resources Board, Emissions Assessment Branch, Stationary 
Source Division, 2020 ``L'' Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, 
California 95812-2815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Bigos, Air Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-3901, (415) 744-1240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 25, 1995, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standard 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for chromium electroplating 
facilities (see 60 FR 4963), which was codified in 40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart N, ``National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions from 
Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing 
Tanks'' (Chrome NESHAP). On July 17, 1998, EPA received the California 
Air Resources Board's (CARB's) request for approval to implement and 
enforce Section 93102 of Title 17 of the California Code of 
Regulations, ``Hexavalent Chromium Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 
Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations'' (Chrome ATCM), 
in place of the Chrome NESHAP as the Federally-enforceable standard in 
California.
    On December 16, 1998, EPA proposed approval of CARB's request in 
the Federal Register (see 63 FR 69251) and announced the availability 
for the public to comment on CARB's application. EPA received no 
comments on the proposed approval.

II. EPA Action

A. California's Chrome ATCM

    California's Chrome ATCM differs in many ways from the Federal 
Chrome NESHAP. Several differences were discussed in the December 16, 
1998, proposed rulemaking and the public was afforded an opportunity to 
comment on the significance of these differences. By today's action, 
the Chrome ATCM will be fully approved as a substitute for the Chrome 
NESHAP. The following discussions, however, are being provided for the 
purpose of clarifying potentially ambiguous or unclear requirements.
1. Title V Requirements
    The Chrome ATCM requires the owner or operator of a major source 
subject to the Chrome ATCM to obtain a Title V permit (see 
Sec. 93102(a)(5)). While the Chrome NESHAP includes this requirement, 
it also provides that all nonmajor sources, except for those sources 
referred to in 40 CFR 63.340(e)(1), are subject to Title V permitting 
requirements. While the applicable Title V permitting authority may 
defer certain qualifying nonmajor sources from the Title V permitting 
requirements until December 9, 1999, currently all sources receiving 
such deferrals are required to submit Title V permit applications by 
December 9, 2000 (see 40 CFR 63.340(e)(2) and 61 FR 27785).
    In addition, both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM require 
major sources to submit ongoing compliance status reports (see 
Sec. 93102(i)(3) and 40 CFR 63.347(g)). However, the Chrome ATCM 
requires these reports to be submitted annually, while the Chrome 
NESHAP requires these reports to be submitted semi-annually (quarterly 
where the applicable emission limit is being exceeded). Because Section 
504(a) of the Act requires major sources that have Title V permits to 
submit such reports no less often than every six months, EPA cannot 
approve this provision of the Chrome ATCM to operate in lieu of the 
comparable provision of the Chrome NESHAP. Major sources must comply 
with the Title V semi-annual reporting requirement as stated in 40 CFR 
63.347(g).
2. Emission Limits for Hard Chromium Electroplating
    Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM allow facilities with a 
maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of greater than 60 
million ampere-hours per year to be considered small (or medium in the 
case of the Chrome ATCM) by accepting a limit on the maximum cumulative 
potential rectifier usage (see Sec. 93102(h)(7)(B) and 40 CFR 
63.342(c)(2)). EPA wishes to clarify that it considers all such usage 
limits in non-Title V operating permits as Federally-enforceable for 
purpose of this substitution of the Chrome ATCM for the Chrome NESHAP.
3. Malfunctions
    Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM provide that the 
emission limits apply during tank operations, including periods of 
startup and shutdown, but do not apply during periods of malfunction, 
which the Chrome ATCM refers to as periods of ``breakdown'' (see 
Sec. 93102(a)(4) and (b)(7), and 40 CFR 63.2 and 63.342(b)(1)). The 
Chrome ATCM both defines the term ``breakdown'' and states that the 
emission limits ``do not apply during periods of equipment breakdown, 
provided the provisions of the permitting agency's breakdown rule are 
met.* * *'' This means that an event does not constitute a breakdown 
unless both of the following conditions are met: (1) the event meets 
the characteristics of a breakdown as defined in the Chrome ATCM, and 
(2) the provisions of the applicable permitting agency's (i.e., 
district's) breakdown rule are met. This two-step analysis is important 
because it is the Chrome ATCM definition of ``breakdown'' that first 
determines what constitutes a breakdown, not the provisions of the 
applicable district's breakdown rule.
    Under the Chrome ATCM, the districts' breakdown rules serve only 
one function: to establish the reporting requirements that must be 
followed when a breakdown occurs (see Sec. 93102(i)(4)). These rules do 
not override or supplant the other breakdown or excess emission 
requirements of the Chrome ATCM, including the requirements to revise 
the operation and maintenance plan to minimize breakdowns (see 
Sec. 93102(g)(4)), to maintain the specified records of all breakdowns 
and excess emissions (see Sec. 93102(h)(5) and (6)), and to include as 
part of the ongoing compliance status report a summary of any excess 
emissions (see Sec. 93102(h)(6), (i)(3)(B), and Appendix 3). And, the 
districts' breakdown rules neither expand the scope nor extend the 
time-frame of a breakdown beyond the definition in Section 93102(b)(7) 
of the Chrome ATCM. In other words, while the emission limits do not 
apply during a breakdown, what constitutes a breakdown is determined by 
the Chrome ATCM's, not a particular district's, definition of 
``breakdown.''
    As a supplement to its application, CARB submitted copies of the 
districts' breakdown rules, which are referenced in Appendix 6 of the 
Chrome ATCM. EPA is making several points of clarification regarding 
these breakdown rules. First, only those district breakdown rules that 
were submitted to

[[Page 12764]]

EPA as part of CARB's Chrome ATCM application are approved as a matter 
of Federal law. A source cannot rely on revisions to a district's 
breakdown rule until such revisions receive EPA's approval under 
Section 112(l) of the Act.
    Second, the approval of the districts' breakdown rules, which are 
incorporated by reference into the Chrome ATCM, is strictly limited to 
the context of approval of the Chrome ATCM under Section 112(l) of the 
Act. While the use of these rules may be appropriate in lieu of the 
Chrome NESHAP reporting requirements, the use of these rules in other 
contexts may be inappropriate (e.g., with regard to other NESHAPs or 
State Implementation Plans). Thus, it is possible that a district's 
breakdown rule can be Federally-approved as part of the Chrome ATCM but 
not Federally-approved as part of the California State Implementation 
Plan.
    Third, some of the districts' breakdown rules use the term 
``malfunction'' rather than ``breakdown.'' For the purpose of the 
Chrome ATCM, EPA interprets these terms as interchangeable, provided 
that it is understood that the Chrome ATCM definition of ``breakdown'' 
is controlling, not the districts' definitions of ``breakdown'' or 
``malfunction.''
    Fourth, some of the districts' breakdown rules include provisions 
regarding the district's authority to determine whether a breakdown has 
occurred, authority to grant emergency variances, or authority to 
decide to take no enforcement action. Like the districts' definitions 
of ``breakdown'' or ``malfunction,'' the above-listed provisions go 
beyond the function of the districts' breakdown rules in the context of 
the Chrome ATCM (such function being limited to establishing the 
reporting requirements that must be followed when a breakdown occurs). 
Thus, EPA's approval of the Chrome ATCM under Section 112(l) of the Act 
does not include such provisions of the districts' breakdown rules 
since these provisions go beyond the scope of the Chrome ATCM.
    Fifth, some of the districts' breakdown rules require written 
breakdown reports only if requested by the district. However, for the 
purpose of approval of the Chrome ATCM, EPA will interpret such rules 
as requiring the submission of written breakdown reports to the 
district even if the district has not formally requested the source to 
provide such reports.
    Sixth, some of the districts' breakdown rules do not specify the 
reporting time period, but merely state that notification shall be 
``immediate'' or the written breakdown report shall be filed 
``subsequently.'' With respect to such rules, EPA will interpret such 
terms by reference to the comparable Chrome NESHAP reporting deadlines 
in 40 CFR 63.342(f)(3)(iv).
4. Performance Test Requirements
    The Chrome ATCM allows the use of CARB Method 425, dated July 28, 
1997, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Method 
205.1, dated August 1991, for determining chromium emissions. By 
approving the Chrome ATCM, these methods are approved only as 
prescribed by the Chrome ATCM and only to determine compliance with the 
Chrome ATCM. EPA approval of the Chrome ATCM does not result in 
approval of these methods as general alternatives to EPA Method 306.
    In addition, the owner or operator of an affected source cannot 
rely on provisions in CARB Method 425 or SCAQMD Method 205.1 allowing 
for approval of alternatives, modifications, or variations from the 
test method. Any such alternatives, modifications, or variations to the 
test methods must be approved under the procedures in Sec. 93102(k) of 
the Chrome ATCM.
5. HEPA Filters, Chrome Tank Covers, and Polyballs
    Unlike the Chrome NESHAP, the Chrome ATCM specifically includes 
requirements for the following alternative emission control 
technologies: high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, chrome 
tank covers, and polyballs. In approving the Chrome ATCM under Section 
112(l) of the Act, EPA is approving these alternative technologies for 
use in California according to the requirements of the Chrome ATCM. 
However, affected sources using these alternative technologies would 
still be required to demonstrate, through compliance testing and 
ongoing compliance monitoring, that the emission standards in 
Sec. 93102(c) are being achieved.
6. Compliance With the Chrome NESHAP
    Under Federal law, until EPA approves the Chrome ATCM (i.e., the 
approval becomes effective), all sources subject to the Chrome NESHAP 
and located in California must be in compliance with the applicable 
requirements of the Chrome NESHAP. Even after such approval becomes 
effective, sources remain subject to Federal enforcement for violation 
of any Chrome NESHAP provision that the source was required to be in 
compliance with prior to the effective date of the Chrome ATCM 
approval. Such Chrome NESHAP provisions include, but are not limited 
to, the requirements to prepare operation and maintenance plans under 
40 CFR 63.342(f)(3), to comply with initial notification deadlines 
under 40 CFR 63.347(c) and (i)(1), and to comply with the new and 
reconstructed source provisions under 40 CFR 63.5 and 63.345.
7. Changes in Source Status
    Unlike the Chrome NESHAP, the Chrome ATCM is not as explicit 
regarding compliance deadlines relating to certain changes to a 
source's status, such as (1) a change from an area source to a major 
source; (2) a change from either a very small, small, medium, or less 
than 60 million ampere-hours hard chrome plater to a different size 
category; and (3) a change from a decorative chrome plater using a 
trivalent chrome bath that incorporates a wetting agent to one that 
ceases to use this process. Since the Chrome ATCM does not explicitly 
state the compliance deadlines for the changes, EPA interprets the 
Chrome ATCM to require immediate compliance with the standard that 
applies to the source's new status.
8. Circumvention
    Under the Chrome NESHAP, no owner or operator shall build, erect, 
install, or use any article, machine, equipment, or process to conceal 
an emission that would otherwise constitute noncompliance with a 
relevant standard (see 40 CFR 63.4(b)). CARB believes that this 
provision is not necessary, presumably because CARB interprets the 
Chrome ATCM as implicitly not allowing such activities.
9. Notification of New and Modified Sources
    Section 93102(j)(2) of the Chrome ATCM allows facilities to fulfill 
the notification of construction or modification requirements in 
Sec. 93102(j)(1) by complying with the applicable district's new source 
review rule or policy, provided similar information is obtained. Thus, 
the district's new source review rules or policy merely serve the 
purpose of obviating the need for duplicative reporting. Such rules or 
policies, however, do not change the underlying requirement that such 
notification must exist and must be generated at least within the time 
frame established by Sec. 93102(j)(1). Furthermore, the burden of proof 
of compliance rests upon the source to prove that it provided notice of 
construction or reconstruction on

[[Page 12765]]

time and that such notice includes at least all of the information 
included in Appendix 4 of the Chrome ATCM.

B. EPA Action

    After reviewing the request for approval of California's Chrome 
ATCM, EPA has determined that this request meets all the requirements 
necessary to qualify for approval under Section 112(l) of the Act and 
40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93. Accordingly, EPA is hereby approving the Chrome 
ATCM as the Federally-enforceable standard for sources in California. 
Upon the effective date of this action, the Chrome ATCM will be 
enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the Act. Although the local 
air pollution control districts in California will have primary 
implementation and enforcement responsibility, EPA retains the right, 
pursuant to Section 112(l)(7) of the Act, to enforce any applicable 
emission standard or requirement under Section 112 of the Act.

C. California's Authorities To Implement and Enforce Section 112 
Standards

1. Penalty Authorities
    Previously, CARB submitted a finding by California's Attorney 
General stating that ``State law provides civil and criminal 
enforcement authority consistent with [40 CFR] 63.91(b)(1)(i), 
63.91(b)(6)(i), and 70.11, including authority to recover penalties and 
fines in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day per 
violation * * *'' (emphasis added) (see 61 FR 25397). In accordance 
with this finding, EPA understands that the California Attorney General 
interprets Section 39674 and the applicable sections of Division 26, 
Part 4, Chapter 4, Article 3 (``Penalties'') of the California Health 
and Safety Code as allowing the collection of penalties for multiple 
violations per day. In addition, EPA also understands that the 
California Attorney General interprets Section 42400(c)(2) of the 
California Health and Safety Code as allowing for, among other things, 
criminal penalties for knowingly rendering inaccurate any monitoring 
method required by a toxic air contaminant rule, regulation, or permit.
    As stated in section II.B above, EPA retains the right, pursuant to 
Section 112(l)(7) of the Act, to enforce any applicable emission 
standard or requirement under Section 112 of the Act, including the 
authority to seek civil and criminal penalties up to the maximum 
amounts specified in Section 113 of the Act.
2. Variances
    Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 4, Articles 2 and 2.5 of the 
California Health and Safety Code provide for the granting of variances 
under certain circumstances. EPA regards these provisions as wholly 
external to CARB's request for approval to implement and enforce a 
Section 112 program or rule and, consequently, is proposing to take no 
action on these provisions of state or local law. EPA does not 
recognize the ability of a state or local agency who has received 
delegation of a Section 112 program or rule to grant relief from the 
duty to comply with such Federally-enforceable program or rule, except 
where such relief is granted in accordance with procedures allowed 
under Section 112 of the Act. As stated above, EPA retains the right, 
pursuant to Section 112(l)(7) of the Act, and citizens retain the 
right, pursuant to Section 304 of the Act, to enforce any applicable 
emission standard or requirement under Section 112 of the Act.
    Similarly, Section 39666(f) of the California Health and Safety 
Code allows local agencies to approve alternative methods from those 
required in the ATCMs, but only as long as such approvals are 
consistent with the Act. A source seeking permission to use an 
alternative means of emission limitation under Section 112 of the Act 
must also receive approval, after notice and opportunity for comment, 
from EPA before using such alternative means of emission limitation for 
the purpose of complying with Section 112 of the Act.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. Accordingly, 
the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this 
rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal

[[Page 12766]]

governments. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 
13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities 
with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because approvals under 40 CFR 63.93 do not 
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the 
state or local agency is already imposing. Therefore, because this 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 14, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section 
112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 7412.

    Dated: February 17, 1999.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart E--Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal 
Authorities

    2. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(E), to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.99  Delegated Federal authorities.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (E) The material incorporated in Chapter 5 of the California 
Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Air Toxics Program 
(California Code of Regulations, Title 17, section 93102) pertains to 
the chromium electroplating and anodizing source category in the State 
of California, and has been approved under the procedures in Sec. 63.93 
to be implemented and enforced in place of subpart N--National Emission 
Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.
    (1) Title V requirements. Subpart N affected sources remain subject 
to both the Title V permitting requirements of Sec. 63.340(e)(2) and, 
for major sources, the semi-annual submission of the ongoing compliance 
status reports as required by Sec. 63.347(g).
    (2) Limits on maximum cumulative potential rectifier usage. Section 
93102(h)(7)(B) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure allows 
facilities with a maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of 
greater than 60 million ampere-hours per year to be considered small or 
medium by accepting a limit on the maximum cumulative potential 
rectifier usage. All such usage limits in non-Title V operating permits 
are federally-enforceable for the purpose of this rule substitution.
    (3) Permitting Agencies' breakdown/malfunction rules. Section 
93102(i)(4) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure provides 
that the owner or operator shall report breakdowns as required by the 
permitting agency's breakdown rule. Under this rule substitution, the 
permitting agencies' breakdown rules do not override or supplant the 
requirements of section 93102(g)(4), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i)(3)(B), or 
Appendix 3; neither expand the scope nor extend the time-frame of a 
breakdown beyond the definition of section 93102(b)(7); and do not 
grant the permitting agencies the authority to determine whether a 
breakdown has occurred, to grant emergency variances, or to decide to 
take no enforcement action. Owners or operators must submit written 
breakdown reports even if the permitting agency has not formally 
requested such reports.
    (4) Performance Test Requirements. Section 93102(d)(3)(A) of the 
California Airborne Toxic Control Measure allows the use of California 
Air Resources Board Method 425, dated July 28, 1997, and South Coast 
Air Quality

[[Page 12767]]

Management District Method 205.1, dated August 1991, for determining 
chromium emissions. Any alternatives, modifications, or variations to 
these test methods must be approved under the procedures in section 
93102(k) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6258 Filed 3-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P